The AHP method is basically composed of two steps. Firstly, we need to determine the relative priority of the criteria or sub-criteria. Then, we determine the relative priority of each candidate. On the other hand, the construction of an outranking relation of ELECTRE I method is based on two major concepts that is concordance and discordance. Both AHP and ELECTRE I method proceeds to a pair-wise comparison of candidates in each single criterion in order to determine the strength of preference of one candidate over the others.
The application method develops in this study is a hierarchy structure of the problem in term of the overall goal, the criteria and the decision of alternatives, which gives clear and formal structure of the situation.
In this study, the process of selection academic staff in Faculty of Science, UTM are more effective by applying both AHP and ELECTRE I method using decision making process. The application of AHP and ELECTRE I methods in this study are free from biasness, as the existing methods are biased to individual value judgments. There is possibility that the normal practiced selection processes are subjected to inefficient procedures and biasness of those in the selection committee.
Both methods applied in this study are more scientific and reasonable method for selection compared to the existing method that is usually influenced by the nature, attitude and experience of the individuals who are involved in the process of selection academic staff.
Each method AHP and ELECTRE I reflects a different approach to solve MADM problems. However, both methods produces same ranking of candidates. For ELECTRE I method, it is elicits from the decision makers a concordance and discordance index for each pair of alternatives. While, AHP method deals with matrix that constructed using the relative importance of the alternatives in term of each criterion.
By using MADM method, decision that is more effective can be made because this method is more standardized or established selection model based on the scale introduced (Saaty, 2008). The existing method is calculated based on the average given from different interviewers that are involved in the process of selection. In existing methods, each candidate will be scored based on each criterion where each criterion has the same marks. The scores of each candidate will be given without comparing scores with other candidate. Then, the candidate with the highest scores will be selected as successful candidate.
AHP and ELECTRE method is the effective methods for MADM with qualitative and quantitative features. The method presented in this study will allow the users to rank their existing alternatives more efficiently and easily. Its help improve the traditional method and simplify the process of selecting the best candidate to become the academic member in this study by considering the criteria that may influence the decision made.
Both methods of AHP and ELECTRE I have different steps in calculation to obtain the best candidates. However, these two methods give the same ranking of each candidate and choose the similar best candidate. From the result that we get in this study, it shows that both AHP and ELECTRE I method give the same result that is Candidate 7 is selected as the most appropriate candidate to be an academic staff in Faculty of Science, UTM.
Several field studies have compared AHP method to one or more of the other methods. Karni et al (1990) in his study concluded that the AHP and MCDM method rankings did not differ significantly in three real life case studies. The three case studies are Evaluating Bank Branches, Locating a Financial Planning Agency, and Selecting a Winner for a Faculty Merit Award.
We can conclude that both AHP and ELECTRE I method rankings did not differ significantly in this study. As stated by Lootsma (1990), contrasted AHP and ELECTRE
method as representing the American and French schools in MCDM thought found to be unexpectedly close to each other. However, it is impossible to determine precisely the best decision making method. This problem of finding the best decision making method always reaches a decision-making paradox which makes any attempt in solving this problem to be of limited success (Triantaphyllou and Mann, 1989).
From the application of the two methods in this study, we can state that there are differences steps and calculation between AHP and ELECTRE I method, but it is not obvious that one method is better than the other, which is both method produce same result.
5.5 Summary
It is important to select an appropriate academic staff for a university to ensure the standard quality and success of a university. Therefore, there is a need to develop a suitable and effective model to improve the existing academic staff selection model in the university. The intent of this study is to show the application of a model that is not overly complex and that does legitimately aggregate across scales that can serve to formalize a decision process, reduce time commitments, create a process orientation, documents the strategy and result in better decisions.
From the result, it can be seen that Candidate 7 is ranked first, followed by Candidate 3, Candidate 6, Candidate 1, Candidate 2, Candidate 4, and lastly Candidate 5. Therefore, Faculty of Science should choose Candidate 7 as the academic staff as it ranked first for both AHP and ELECTRE I method in this study.
CHAPTER 6